i am trying to use the cavalier fuel pump mainly because i couldnt figure out any other way to get my cavalier fuel gauge working.i looked into an extra sender and booster pump but they seemed like to much work .now i am not so sure .....

i am going to to run the pump off of one of the ignition switch actuated feeds on the fiero fuse block if i have to.i think i will be able to figure out what is wrong ,i think it might be just a bad ground.the cavalier harness made the fiero fuel pump work without a problem ,so it should operate the pump it was meant to operate.i was a little too tired to start trouble shooting last night .i really do not want to drop the tank again.

turned out i just needed to add a ground to the cavalier harness .i must have accidentally cut off the ground for that part of the harness when i was cutting it down in size.the fiero pump assembly is all metal and i noticed the ground wire is attached right on that assembly.thats why the fiero pump ran without an additional ground .so now that the engine is running again ,i can go back to working on my new exhaust system .

it seemed to run fine ,but i have the section of the instrument cluster that shows the warning lights blanked off so i dont have to stare at the airbag light,door ajar ,brakes ,and all the other stuff that lights up because they are not connected .since the car is off the road right now i wont know what kind of improvement this makes until spring.

Hey WFTB, thanks for the comments on my ecotec project. I left a special response for you on my thread, plus a solution to your exhaust manifold issues ---I read through this thread again, and came across something I missed. Megasquirt! You guys had said that it can't control the Ecotec's ignition... that isn't 100% true.

Yes, MS is designed as a fuel computer, BUT there is an upgrade called "Megasquirt n' Spark" or "MSnS" for short.---The version of MS that I have is optimal for the upgrade: V2.2 board with the MS 1 setup. MS 2 apparently doesn't work with it. And as far as the boards, earlier 1.x versions need a bunch of upgrades, and V3.0 only supports 1 coil (I think).

The way my setup will (theoretically) work is as follows:

With the firmware change to MSnS, outputs 17 and 19 (default setting), two of the LED's on the side of the box, are sacrificed to trigger the 2 channels on the ignition module on the Ecotec's COP module, but the lights will be more useful, as two LED's will represent ignition pulses, and the one used for injector pulses will remain... far better than "enrichment" and "warmup" indications if you ask me.

As far as triggering source, MSnS is compatible with the toothed wheel on the Ecotec's crank (6 teeth?).

I can't confirm 100% that the Ecotec ignition module (the smaller part with the aluminum fins) will be compatible, but it's a good chance, and there is a daugterboard upgrade if it's not.

With that daughterboard upgrade, you just rip the ignition module off the COP unit (it's held on by 3 screws), and use NAPA connector part # EC144 or AC Delco connector part # PT787 in place of it (Napa's is cheaper), or you can use seprate MSD coil packs (preferabbly dual output coils). There's no good reason to NOT do wasted spark ignition with this motor, because that's how it is in stock form. Individual coil channels will kinda go against how the motor was designed, and will require more outputs from MS.---The COP module has two coil packs inside of it, and uses a 6 pin connector, but pins 1 & 5 aren't installed on the module.

Pin 2 is cylinders 1 & 4, pin 3 is ignition voltage, pin 4 is cylinders 2 & 3, and pin 6, although on the COP module, it isn't used, although one day I'll take a bad pack apart and see where it goes.---As far as wire readouts on the ignition module itself, I'm not that far yet. I have to do some R & D of my own, as no one has that info in simplified form. I have to visually trace the individual wires from the module to the individual ECM pins, and look up the ECM pin #, which I have planned for the many snowy "stay indoors" days that the state of Maine has to offer

I am going to post that info as soon as I have it.

P.S. If any Megasquirt gurus out there see any flaws in this info... DO NOT HESITATE to correct me. I did this research over 4 months ago, and I'm sure I mixed something up.

Hey WFTB, thanks for the comments on my ecotec project. I left a special response for you on my thread, plus a solution to your exhaust manifold issues ---I read through this thread again, and came across something I missed. Megasquirt! You guys had said that it can't control the Ecotec's ignition... that isn't 100% true.

Yes, MS is designed as a fuel computer, BUT there is an upgrade called "Megasquirt n' Spark" or "MSnS" for short.---The version of MS that I have is optimal for the upgrade: V2.2 board with the MS 1 setup. MS 2 apparently doesn't work with it. And as far as the boards, earlier 1.x versions need a bunch of upgrades, and V3.0 only supports 1 coil (I think).

The way my setup will (theoretically) work is as follows:

With the firmware change to MSnS, outputs 17 and 19 (default setting), two of the LED's on the side of the box, are sacrificed to trigger the 2 channels on the ignition module on the Ecotec's COP module, but the lights will be more useful, as two LED's will represent ignition pulses, and the one used for injector pulses will remain... far better than "enrichment" and "warmup" indications if you ask me.

As far as triggering source, MSnS is compatible with the toothed wheel on the Ecotec's crank (6 teeth?).

I can't confirm 100% that the Ecotec ignition module (the smaller part with the aluminum fins) will be compatible, but it's a good chance, and there is a daugterboard upgrade if it's not.

With that daughterboard upgrade, you just rip the ignition module off the COP unit (it's held on by 3 screws), and use NAPA connector part # EC144 or AC Delco connector part # PT787 in place of it (Napa's is cheaper), or you can use seprate MSD coil packs (preferabbly dual output coils). There's no good reason to NOT do wasted spark ignition with this motor, because that's how it is in stock form. Individual coil channels will kinda go against how the motor was designed, and will require more outputs from MS.---The COP module has two coil packs inside of it, and uses a 6 pin connector, but pins 1 & 5 aren't installed on the module.

Pin 2 is cylinders 1 & 4, pin 3 is ignition voltage, pin 4 is cylinders 2 & 3, and pin 6, although on the COP module, it isn't used, although one day I'll take a bad pack apart and see where it goes.---As far as wire readouts on the ignition module itself, I'm not that far yet. I have to do some R & D of my own, as no one has that info in simplified form. I have to visually trace the individual wires from the module to the individual ECM pins, and look up the ECM pin #, which I have planned for the many snowy "stay indoors" days that the state of Maine has to offer

I am going to post that info as soon as I have it.

P.S. If any Megasquirt gurus out there see any flaws in this info... DO NOT HESITATE to correct me. I did this research over 4 months ago, and I'm sure I mixed something up.

I was pretty much the only one mentioning megasquirt, but from what I read that little aluminum thing would not work with MSnS. Thats why I am using the 2 coil DIS off an older cavailer, since I know the jbody people have been doing this for sometime with no problems.

Originally posted by Fosgatecavy98:I was pretty much the only one mentioning megasquirt, but from what I read that little aluminum thing would not work with MSnS. Thats why I am using the 2 coil DIS off an older cavailer, since I know the jbody people have been doing this for sometime with no problems.

I think part of it is that no one has tried it. If I remember right, it's a 7 pin connector, and 6 pins are used. 2 pins for the ignition channels, 1 for 12V, 1 for ground, 1 for crank trigger input, and 1 for tach output... I don't yet know which pins exactly do those things... but I'm working on it, and it should work in theory. Everything the module needs, MSnS can supply.

Time will tell in a couple of months when I crank my Ecotec over. If it doesn't start... well, we'll have the answer to our question

I think part of it is that no one has tried it. If I remember right, it's a 7 pin connector, and 6 pins are used. 2 pins for the ignition channels, 1 for 12V, 1 for ground, 1 for crank trigger input, and 1 for tach output... I don't yet know which pins exactly do those things... but I'm working on it, and it should work in theory. Everything the module needs, MSnS can supply.

Time will tell in a couple of months when I crank my Ecotec over. If it doesn't start... well, we'll have the answer to our question

I may have the diagram you need, I'll post in a little bit if I can get ahold of it again

wftb- correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you've taken the ECM 'entier' from the cavalier and even the ignition switch and guage cluster. I presume that this allows you to use the stock ignition system as well? Will we not always need the eco's brain box to run it? I mean it sounds like we might be on the cusp of figuring out how to rig the MS to make it go, but my question is why we can't just make the Cav's ECM talk to the fiero guages? Is it as simple (ha) as routing each and every wire form the ECM to each and every applicable wire from the fiero's chassis electrical system? I seem to remember reading up somewhere that that's how the 3.8 guys do it, piggybacking the 3.8's brain on the fiero's accessories and guages. Are the inputs/outputs so different on the eco that they are in no way compatible with the stock fiero guages/chassis?

my ecotec engine is run off of the cavalier ignition ,ecm ,bcm and wireing .the fiero computer is not in the car.i use the cavalier instrument cluster because it plugs right in to the harness.i am not much of a computer person ,so i dont know if the fiero gauges can be blended with the cavalier ecm/bcm .my main goal was to make my fiero run with this motor ,and make it perfect later .so in my car the cavvy ecm/bcm will probably remain intregral.as for making 200 hp normally asperated ,i think that would not be hard unless you have nooo money .

Oh- and I wanted to ask as well, is it possible/feasible/worth it to make a 2.2 that makes 200hp without blowing it or turboing it?

From what I have read (quiet a bit) 2.2 ecotecs can get up to 250+ hp easy with a gm supercharger kit. The 2.0 ecotec comes with a supercharger and is 230 or so from the factory, with a stage 2, it puts the motor up to 250-260. Ecotecs the best way to go.

That's crazy, man. Of course, I'm sure you're looking at a hefty chink of change for one of those blower units. What else are they doing to the engine to get those kind of numbers? The coolest part is that they still are way lighter than the original engines and any other iron block engine used for swapping. I'd like to see someone produce a kit made from wftb's mounts he fabbed, if it was comparable or less than archie's V8 kit I'd be all over that like fat on cheese.cheersAustin

i think 200 hp out of the 2.2 is do able with headers , better intake and throttle body ,custom exhaust and better cams .my plan is just to hang a turbo on mine , maybe next winter.i dont want to do anything that requires engine surgery .this motor ran really strong the way it was and with the better exhaust i am putting on it will be even stronger.i priced out a g-tech unit down in London today and i am going to get one before spring and then i will have some performance numbers to post. i think the supercharged moter would be great .the kit is 2500.00 plus shipping .i think i can turbo for a lot less than that.plus once they start showing up in the wrecking yards , it should be cheaper to buy a whole engine and transmission than what the supercharger kit is going for.if GM would hurry up and put the supercharged motor in more cars ,the price would drop in a hurry. as far as kits go ,i talked to Lloyd at Fast fieros and he doesnt want to do a kit until he has done some turnkey jobs and he has been too busy to mess with the ecotec.ceticars has a stand alone wiring harness and adapter plates are available to use the stock fiero tranny .of course that drives the price up .

so far i havent found a header that will work the way i want it .as mentioned before ,the cavalier headers use up a lot of trunk space.the manifold from the 2.4 solstice motor should bolt right up and it points down instead of straight out.but i am going to wait until someone starts making a header for the solstice and get one of those.there isnt any market for a solstice header yet ,i have gone to a lot of sites and no solstice headers yet.this is what i am stuck with at the moment:

You're in luck. They DO make headers for the Solstice, and I have one on mine. I've had it now for almost 6 months. They are made by a company called Clear Image Automotive. The shorty header is friggin AWESOME.

I'm on order for their free-flow catalytic converter. I was going to e-mail you because I now have a spare Solstice exhaust manifold, but I reconsidered because I might as well keep everything for this car in case it becomes something of a rarity in 30 years (I plan to still have it then).

But, I might as well get to my original point that I was going to post before I saw this one...

Why wouldn't you want to consider using a 2.4 VVT Solstice or HHR motor? The 2.2 EcoTec is a great motor... yeah, but it's grossly underpowered and is really not an upgrade over the V6 Fiero.

With a free-flow intake and a free-flow exhaust, you can easily squeeze 200hp out of the Solstice 2.4 VVT motor.

My Solstice weighs about ~2850 pounds, and I typically see 18s in the city, and nearly 30 on the highway for fuel economy. Imagine what that would do in a Fiero which weighs 2700 pounds (probably 50-75lbs less because that's figuring the weight of an all cast iron V6 or L4).

i think 200 hp out of the 2.2 is do able with headers , better intake and throttle body ,custom exhaust and better cams .my plan is just to hang a turbo on mine , maybe next winter.i dont want to do anything that requires engine surgery .this motor ran really strong the way it was and with the better exhaust i am putting on it will be even stronger.i priced out a g-tech unit down in London today and i am going to get one before spring and then i will have some performance numbers to post. i think the supercharged moter would be great .the kit is 2500.00 plus shipping .i think i can turbo for a lot less than that.plus once they start showing up in the wrecking yards , it should be cheaper to buy a whole engine and transmission than what the supercharger kit is going for.if GM would hurry up and put the supercharged motor in more cars ,the price would drop in a hurry. as far as kits go ,i talked to Lloyd at Fast fieros and he doesnt want to do a kit until he has done some turnkey jobs and he has been too busy to mess with the ecotec.ceticars has a stand alone wiring harness and adapter plates are available to use the stock fiero tranny .of course that drives the price up .

Honestly... you may want to consider going with a 2.4 LD9 "TwinCam" motor for your swap instead.

It might actually be a MUCH better solution for you. I've had quite a bit of experience with the TwinCam, and I have to say it's a really great motor. It's not much different than the Ecotec, at least if we're talking about a NON VVT one.

You can get a low mileage "LD9" TwinCam engine for VERY cheap. They are ALL over eBay. You'll want to find one from a 96-98 Pontiac Grand Am / Olds Achieva, or the Chevy Cavalier / Sunfire with the 2.4. They also had them in the last generation of GrandAms up until 2002.

The reason I mention it is because... GM offers a FACTORY PERFORMANCE KIT for the 2.4 LD9 TwinCam with the Getrag 5-Speed. It's a supercharger that bolts RIGHT up to it. It even has the air intake facing towards the Fiero's factory air inlet / side scoop.

Now, the 2.4 TwinCam is basically the "OBD-2" version of the Quad-4. There are MANY kits that were offered for the Quad-4 over the years. There don't appear to be any currently available anymore, but there are enough people with them that you can easily get information. I mention the Quad-4 because you can actually CONTROL the 2.4 TwinCam using all LATE 2.3 Quad-4 electronics. The 1993-1995 Quad-4 computer / engine harness will bolt RIGHT up to the TwinCam.

Or... you can still do what he's doing in this thread for his Ecotec. The benefit of course to going with OBD-1 is that the ECM is more or less self contained and doesn't have any requirements for all that other crap (the ABS computer, the radio, the dash cluster processor, all that other crap). So, you can basically use your STOCK Fiero gauge cluster (or a 120, or whatever) and hook it all up to the OBD-1 Quad-4 ECM.

What's even BETTER is that there is a set of upgraded camshafts that can be used on the 2.4 TwinCam. This is called the "Secret Cam Swap". It's a silly name, but basically what you do is take an intake cam from a 1993 Quad-4, and an exhaust cam from a 1995 Quad-4 (or it might be the other way around). That said, you end up with exactly 11 more peak horsepower, and a shift of power by about 200rpms. (slightly less INITIAL power off the line, but much much more pull in the mid to upper rpms).

But, in a Fiero that's much lighter than a crapalier, or an older GrandAm, you're going to be putting out some decent power.

Consider it, the stock 2.4 LD9 TwinCam has basically a totally FLAT torque curve... which almost negates any benefit really of having VVT (you wouldn't see much improvement).

The stock LD9 TwinCam puts out 155hp and 150lbs of torque in it's typical form. With the Secret Cam Swap, you'll see somewhere around 165hp and 155lbs of torque. Now, when you go with the GM supercharger, you'll be putting out around ~220hp.

It's a REALLY great swap, and what's so nice about the 2.4 TwinCam is that it's actually a fairly refined motor (compared to the Quad-4). It has a set of balancing shafts which help quiet and smooth the engines operation.

its a little late for me to do a quad 4 style swap since i have already put about 6000 km on my ecotec swapped 86 gt.but i agree that the quad 4 and all its varients are great motors .but i wanted 3 things out of my swap: 1.i wanted an engine that is still in production 2.i wanted aluminum block and head 3.i wanted 5 speeds and a stronger transaxle as far as using the fiero dash cluster and gauges ,i really didnt care if they got used or not.when i found out that a cavalier cluster could be had for only 65.00 i jumped at it.it was easy to adapt to the fiero pod and the whole assembly doesnt even weigh a pound.it gives the car an updated look without a lot of work. the cavalier intake also points in the same direction as the fiero.shorten it up and clamp it on. there are lots of go fast goodies for the eco and i really think that the eco has more potential than the quad four type motors.it is a much newer design .we will just have to see if anyone takes it that far (fieroturbo is getting there)

wftb: Did you ever get to verify if that solstice header was 165 bucks? oh, and was that Canadian or American dollars? Oh, and as to doing your turbo set up on the cheap, How much are you going to complete it for? or rather, do you have a budget in mind?

in my fiero the 2.2 ecotec out performs my old modified 2.8 v6 .that motor had a fiero store performance rebuild kit ,bored 30 over ,windage tray ,performance harmonic balancer ,pully kit ,and completely balanced rotating assembly and i ported the stock exhaust manifolds and put on a brand new cat.but the ecotec is still faster and it was running on a cobbled together exhaust system and a fuel pump running 14 psi lighter than a cavalier pump .the 2.2 ecotec weighs some where around 150 pounds less than a 2.8 and has stock hp ratings of between 140 and 148 hp depending on the car it is in.the stock fiero 2.8 v6 is rated at 140 hp but sure doesnt feel like it.the best car and driver could get out of a brand new 86 gt v6 4 speed with exactly the same options as mine(air , cruise ,pw ,pdl ,spoiler ,subwoofer etc ) was a 15.9 second 1/4mile time at 85 mph.observed fuel economy was only 16 mpg so i think they were thrashing it pretty good. i found a test by motor trend of a 4dr 2,2 eco powered cobalt and it did the 1/4 in 16.2 sec at 86.8 mph.that is in a 75 lb heavier car than a stock fiero with a v6 .also running all weather tires and not near as aerodynamic body as the fiero gt.so take the ecotec and put it in the fiero gt.power to weight ratio becomes 18.77 lbs per horsepower compared with 19.84 lbs. per horsepower with the old v6.and thats assuming the hp ratings for both motors are on the up and up .in the car and driver road test it says that the 2.8 has its maximum hp at 5200 rpm.i dont think too many stock 2.8 drivers will deny that the power drops off rapidly above 4800 rpm.on the other hand the power on my ecotec stays strong right up to the 6500 redline.i also now have 5 speeds where i used to have 4. i looked at the pics of the 2.4 and they look great but they seem expensive.also you have drive by wire to contend with and my ecm / bcm combo will not run that motor.so unless they are willing to throw in the ecm /bcm and the rest of the cars wiring harness and the ignition with the key in it ,that motor would be useless to me.it wont even run in a 2.2 cobalt without the ecm / bcm and the ignition key assembly.

i have given up on the idea of the solstice manifold for now .but those shorty solstice headers look really interesting and they look like they will clear everything.i dont think the long headers will work ,probably hit the transaxle.

in my fiero the 2.2 ecotec out performs my old modified 2.8 v6 .that motor had a fiero store performance rebuild kit ,bored 30 over ,windage tray ,performance harmonic balancer ,pully kit ,and completely balanced rotating assembly and i ported the stock exhaust manifolds and put on a brand new cat.but the ecotec is still faster and it was running on a cobbled together exhaust system and a fuel pump running 14 psi lighter than a cavalier pump .the 2.2 ecotec weighs some where around 150 pounds less than a 2.8 and has stock hp ratings of between 140 and 148 hp depending on the car it is in.the stock fiero 2.8 v6 is rated at 140 hp but sure doesnt feel like it.the best car and driver could get out of a brand new 86 gt v6 4 speed with exactly the same options as mine(air , cruise ,pw ,pdl ,spoiler ,subwoofer etc ) was a 15.9 second 1/4mile time at 85 mph.observed fuel economy was only 16 mpg so i think they were thrashing it pretty good. i found a test by motor trend of a 4dr 2,2 eco powered cobalt and it did the 1/4 in 16.2 sec at 86.8 mph.that is in a 75 lb heavier car than a stock fiero with a v6 .also running all weather tires and not near as aerodynamic body as the fiero gt.so take the ecotec and put it in the fiero gt.power to weight ratio becomes 18.77 lbs per horsepower compared with 19.84 lbs. per horsepower with the old v6.and thats assuming the hp ratings for both motors are on the up and up .in the car and driver road test it says that the 2.8 has its maximum hp at 5200 rpm.i dont think too many stock 2.8 drivers will deny that the power drops off rapidly above 4800 rpm.on the other hand the power on my ecotec stays strong right up to the 6500 redline.i also now have 5 speeds where i used to have 4. i looked at the pics of the 2.4 and they look great but they seem expensive.also you have drive by wire to contend with and my ecm / bcm combo will not run that motor.so unless they are willing to throw in the ecm /bcm and the rest of the cars wiring harness and the ignition with the key in it ,that motor would be useless to me.it wont even run in a 2.2 cobalt without the ecm / bcm and the ignition key assembly.

I won't disagree with you on the positives of the 2.2, but is it possible that your 2.8 might not have been broken in properly? I had a 1985 Fiero GT, granted, it was a bare bones GT... but it was basically a stock 2.8 bottom end. The only thing it had was decked heads (because it had overheated at one point), that DID end up increasing the compression. It also had a 4.10:1 4-Speed from a Chevy Cavalier (originally mated to a 2.5). It did have a slightly improved exhaust, and ported exhaust manifolds... but other than that, the car was basically stock.

I ran a 14.82 at 89.3 miles an hour at Moroso Motorsports park. I bought it from a guy named John Altman who lived in Ohio. His family drove it down for me, I put 20k miles on it, and then sold it to someone who ALSO happened to live in Ohio (he flew down, and drove it back home).

When I ran it at Moroso, it had 168k miles on the bottom end!!! hahah...

I think the ecotec is great, I have one in my Solstice and know what it's capable of, but I had to defend the 2.8...

i also drove the same engine in the same car and there was a sizeable improvement over the motor after the rebuild .and you are right the new motor was probably going to loosen up a bit with a few more miles on it.it had a thousand miles on it when a cheap crane lifter went and chewed a lobe off the cam.the performance from the 2.8 just doesnt match the ecotec.and now that i have worked on a 2.8 i would never spend any money on one .it just has too many drawbacks ,the main one being that the oiling system is weak and with the lifter galleys being primarys ,you cant install a roller lifter and cam .i gave my 2.8 to my friend al to put into the 85 2m4 i sold him.he is buying new gm lifters and we are hoping to put the same crane model cam as i had in it.after it is broken in(again) i am going to get it dynoed to see what kind of hp it was really putting out. in any production run of cars there is always a few that just get put together with closer tolerances in the engine and drivetrain and are just faster than the norm.you probably had one of those cars.but from reading this forum for the last 5 years i know that most unmodified 2.8 cars 1/4 mile times are usually high 15 to mid 17 seconds depending on the tranny used.

anyway , i would like to keep this thread on topic .this is the ecotec swap thread ,not the lets argue about engines thread .there are plenty of threads that you can argue about engines on .please restrict your posts to how to suggestions and if you are doing an eco swap feel free to post all about it on this thread .i am working on the exhaust right now.i have decided to make use of my flex pipe that i have already paid for and go the up and over the tranny route .that way i can put the cat in the original location and the muffler can fit in the back ,and i can make use of at least one of the stock tips.the muffler is a single outlet ' cherry bomb ' i found at canadian tire in london ont.so if i hang both tips ,one will be for looks only.i am doing it on the cheap this way because next year i am going to turbo the motor and the exhaust will have to be changed again anyway.pics

i have got my latest version of exhaust system working .i ran the pipes backward to the stock fiero .the pipe to the cat goes under the cradle the it goes up and over the tranny and to the top of the engine compartment and back down into the muffler mounted near the stock location . then i hooked a stock gt tip to the muffler and it exits on the drivers side in the stock location.the centre output of the ecotec is what makes all this necessary .all the piping has been wrapped with header wrap to protect the hoses and wiring .i overlapped more than normal and the covered it with duct tape .except for the pipe that comes right off the manifold ,you can grab any pipe with your bare hand and not get burnt .i need to add some pipe insulation over the fuel lines before i drive the car .this is all a bit unorthodox , but it suits what i want until i turbo the motor and then i will get a custom stainles exhaust made .i have found a shop local to me that will make a set up ,headers and all. pics :

since we are not getting snow right know ,i decided to take the car out for a spin .i had a coolant leak develop at the allen head drain plug while the car was sitting ,and it let enough air in to cause an airlock . after i fixed the leak i couldnt get rid of the airlock.i dont know how i managed to to get rid of the airlock when i first drove the car ,but i had to make an extra fill neck up at the rad to get the air out.the water jacket on the ecotec goes quite a bit higher than the 2.8 did .add to that the fact that the cooling lines come out of the engine on the wrong side of the car resulting in the coolant flow going in the bottom and out the top of the rad ,and you understand why the airlock is hard to get rid of.i was thinking of making some crossover coolant tubes ,but even on the hottest days the car does not overheat the way it is .i will post a pic of my airlock fix after this post.so the cooling system works properly know . but i had two disappointments today .my new exhaust that seemed to work fine in the garage ,runs way too hot on the road .the duct tape i put on over the header wrap is slowly melting off and i am a little worried about a fire.so its back to the drawing board ,too bad because it ran well and has a nice sound to it.i dont know how many layers of header wrap it would take to protect everything and the stuff is 80 $ a roll so i dont intend to find out.the other problem is the gas guage that seemed to be working did not move when i put more gas in today .it read 0 and moved up to 1/8 when i first put gas in after installing the cavalier pump and sending unit in the fiero tank ,but it seems to be stuck in that position . there seemed to be lots of room for the arm to go up and down ,but who knows .could be just a bad sender .i will have to run it out of gas sometime and see if it will give me a 0 indication.i am not dropping the tank again this year. as far as the exhaust goes ,i may just have to lose the bottom of the trunk and keep every thing underneath and at the back.or i might bite the bullit and try a solstice manifold ,but i still think that would still require going up and over any way and that is where the problem is. losing some of the trunk seems to be a pretty common thing after an engine swap and i will still have enogh room for my golf clubs and a small overnight bag so it wont be a big deal.not really what i wanted to do but i cant leave it the way it is.

Header wrap is always going to get hotter than duct tape can stand. I would get it off of the header (the duct tape). A better header insulation would be a bag style of wrap which is not in direct contact with the header.

yes that certainly is true.anyway ,i got our two sets of golf clubs and it didnt matter how i tried i could only get one set of clubs in the stock size trunk .so that made me realize i am not losing much by cutting off the lower part of the trunk to make more room for the exhaust. this will also mean that i dont have to put the cat in the stock location . i also decided to turbocharge the car now instead of waiting till next year . it should be here on monday .it is for a subaru ,but looks easy to adapt to the cavalier manifold .with the turbo ,i hope to be able to run with a cat and no muffler .thats what they do on remote turbo camaros and they dont sound too loud .so now all the exhaust is back off of the car while i wait for my turbo.and i cut off the bottom of the trunk .pics when i get the turbo.